View Single Post
Old 6th May 2013, 17:16   #6  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,750
Ars Technica had a good, reasonably skeptical article: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/are-video-codecs-written-in-javascript-really-the-future/

This seems of unlikely value to me. On most browsers it won't even support P or B frames right now according to the article. And I'm not really use if something that requires WebGL to be interesting really counts as "JavaScript."

I'd think that most devices with good enough hardware to do JS+WebGL with have a hardware H.264 decoder ASIC, and probably have hardware encode as well. Unless they are doing something CRAZY, there's no way they're getting 25% more efficient at similar wattage!

I expect that "25%" example is probably a case where they didn't configure the H.264 encode correctly. I can't tell you how many booths at NAB I tweaked their x264 command lines for "apples-to-apples" comparisons.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote